Description: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and other regulators in the anti-corruption field will make judgments about treating a company more leniently, or even about bringing a case in the first place, based on whether they perceive the company had an “effective” compliance program. Of course, regulators don’t ask these questions unless and until a company has already experienced a triggering corruption event. Consequently, the DOJ audience will be skeptical and the burden of proof to show “effectiveness” in spite of the problems at hand will clearly be on the company. An explanation of existing controls and a plea of “lack of resources” to do what was necessary to stop the event at hand will not alone carry the argument. Prosecutors will focus on what was reasonable under the circumstances. The only compelling story for a company to relate will center on its approach to conducting anti-corruption risk assessments and what was done to follow through.